Appeal

[David79]

Right? Look, I don't see GB as a malicious fellow, but it is painfully obvious that he did not particularly like Meyer. It appeantly effected his ability to manage her properly. It's not hard at all to understand why 8 jurors would believe that the way Meyer was handled was based on discrimination. I have no reason to disbelieve numerous accounts of Meyer's social and professional shortcomings, but the bottom line is Barta did not follow the burden of the law. That makes us guilty. Intention doesn't matter at all.

This is wrong on several things.
1) Plaintiff had the burden to prove the case.
2) it wasn't a criminal matter.
3) intention does matter in several of the counts

 

[David79]

I am not an advocate of Jane Meyer. I also think (without facts) that it might be borderline malpractice by Carroll if he somehow was unaware of the forepersons potential fandom of ISU football. It could be as simple as she was the lesser of several evils.

I am sad about the entire situation. I do hold Iowa and Barta responsible for at the least the ineptitude displayed. I wish that Iowa could have smacked these lawsuits down in court and been victorious. That seemed like a long shot pretty early on to me.

My personal summation of this whole deal is that Jane was a poor employee. Especially after the firing of her partner. Barta was a poor manager. Especially relating to employee conflict. I believe this was a case of "what it looks like". Unfortunately for Iowa what it looks like is discrimination. Even though I do personally believe that it was something else all together. That hard truth is we just didn't have any power behind our punch. She had a paper trail and Iowa had tissues for wiping away our tears. The verdict was made and so now the discrimination is fact. Even though it is difficult, accepting something as fact doesn't mean you have to accept it as truth. Facts are often known, but the truth is rarely ever known. I will not argue with what any individual fan believes to be true or untrue, but I do grow weary of the futile effort of trying to deny the facts. Trust me I am in the same boat. What I have accepted as fact does not jive with what I believe the truth is, but I am powerless to change the facts.

I think the AGs office should not have been handling the case as they were the ones who advised Barta on how to handle Meyer. That could have skewed how they viewed the case and impaired their ability to give the best defense.

 

[Adam]

If was the foreman (foreperson) of the Jury. And I'm not claiming that the person lied, however it has been reported that the jurors selected were not sports fans. If you look at the forepersons facebook page it is quite clear she is a huge sports fan.

I'm not arguing the forepersons circumstances, because I have little to no info on the matter. I will say though that my wife goes to Iowa games, wears Iowa clothing and posts game day pics on Facebook, however she could give 2 shits about the Iowa programs.I doubt she would even be distraught if college athletics ended tomorrow. It is purely social for my wife. My point is it might be misleading to extrapolate the assumption that the foreperson is an ISU fan based on a few Facebook posts. I will concede though that the outside appearance does suggest so.

 

[tksirius]

I'm not arguing the forepersons circumstances, because I have little to no info on the matter. I will say though that my wife goes to Iowa games, wears Iowa clothing and posts game day pics on Facebook, however she could give 2 shits about the Iowa programs.I doubt she would even be distraught if college athletics ended tomorrow. It is purely social for my wife. My point is it might be misleading to extrapolate the assumption that the foreperson is an ISU fan based on a few Facebook posts. I will concede though that the outside appearance does suggest so.

Lol. Over half of her FB posts either involve her rooting on the clowns or at least wearing clown apparel. It's not just "a few Facebook posts."

 

[hawkdrummer1]

I'm not arguing the forepersons circumstances, because I have little to no info on the matter. I will say though that my wife goes to Iowa games, wears Iowa clothing and posts game day pics on Facebook, however she could give 2 shits about the Iowa programs......

Good point, but if your wife was going to ISU games...she'd be obsessed with IOWA.

 

[Adam]

This is wrong on several things.
1) Plaintiff had the burden to prove the case.
2) it wasn't a criminal matter.
3) intention does matter in several of the counts

1)
My comment that Barta did not follow the burden of the law has nothing to do with the burden of proof in the Meyer trial. It was a statement that as an employer you have a burden of the law that you must follow. Equal opportunity, ADA and discrimination guidelines are all burdens of the law for an employer. Barta did not follow these burdens.

2)
There is a difference between criminal law and employment law. We were just found guilty of violating employment law.

3)
Ok. Fair enough. Intention is a factor for some of the individual counts. What I thought I was getting across was that once we had failed to establish any foundation of insubordination, from that point on the pendulum was swinging against us and that Barta's true intentions were tainted by the established facts. Therfore they were no longer the main factor in the logical conclusion. I will admit that it may have been poorly worded in the intrest of brevity.

 

[Adam]

Good point, but if your wife was going to ISU games...she'd be obsessed with IOWA.

Lol.

 

[Adam]

Lol. Over half of her FB posts either involve her rooting on the clowns or at least wearing clown apparel. It's not just "a few Facebook posts."

I have not looked at her Facebook directly, so I wouldn't know. I disclaimed that I had very little information about the lady. I have only seen 2 different pictures of her in ISU garb. I have seen zero written posts of hers pertaining to ISU or Iowa, so that is the information that I had to go on when making my post.

 

[David79]

1)
My comment that Barta did not follow the burden of the law has nothing to do with the burden of proof in the Meyer trial. It was a statement that as an employer you have a burden of the law that you must follow. Equal opportunity, ADA and discrimination guidelines are all burdens of the law for an employer. Barta did not follow these burdens.

2)
There is a difference between criminal law and employment law. We were just found guilty of violating employment law.

3)
Ok. Fair enough. Intention is a factor for some of the individual counts. What I thought I was getting across was that once we had failed to establish any foundation of insubordination, from that point on the pendulum was swinging against us and that Barta's true intentions were tainted by the established facts. Therfore they were no longer the main factor in the logical conclusion. I will admit that it may have been poorly worded in the intrest of brevity.

1) ok I kind of see what you are saying but the only thing I can see he didn't follow better was equal pay.
2) They weren't found guilty. They were found liable. But I know what you are saying.
3) The problem was, she was a pain in the ass employee and messed up a couple things but it wouldn't have mattered if they wrote that down or not. Listen to the juries own words. Those things were 'petty'. The problem was she was fired after she started bringing up discrimination claims and after her relationship was known to Barta. Then you have comms from Barta and AG saying she should be reassigned because of relationship. Even though they meant because there is a conflict because TG was suing the U. It is very easily to twist that to fired because of lesbian relationship.

 

[Adam]

1) ok I kind of see what you are saying but the only thing I can see he didn't follow better was equal pay.
2) They weren't found guilty. They were found liable. But I know what you are saying.
3) The problem was, she was a pain in the ass employee and messed up a couple things but it wouldn't have mattered if they wrote that down or not. Listen to the juries own words. Those things were 'petty'. The problem was she was fired after she started bringing up discrimination claims and after her relationship was known to Barta. Then you have comms from Barta and AG saying she should be reassigned because of relationship. Even though they meant because there is a conflict because TG was suing the U. It is very easily to twist that to fired because of lesbian relationship.

I think we could have won the equal pay count on its own. Nothing is truly equal unless 2 people perform the exact same job duties with the exact same production. I think there was substantial enough leeway on that count of the suit. I understand your placed importance on the exact details of her firing. However I still am unwavering in my opinion that documentation of insubordination would have changed the entire dynamic of the trial.

 

[SpiderRico]

Here's my question...as the defendant, did the U of I have a right to a bench trial? I say that because, with hindsight being 20/20, it's obvious that the jurors (certainly the foreperson) certainly didn't have the aptitude to understand the situation at hand.

 

[Hawknigh]

Lol. Over half of her FB posts either involve her rooting on the clowns or at least wearing clown apparel. It's not just "a few Facebook posts."

I think she likes tailgating, taking photos with friends and family, and going to restaurants. Very little evidence that she actually cares about college sports.

 

[tksirius]

I think she likes tailgating, taking photos with friends and family, and going to restaurants. Very little evidence that she actually cares about college sports.

Ok, only 90% of her wardrobe consists of clown gear. Definitely, does not care about college sports. Just needs more bling.

 

[Adam]

Here's my question...as the defendant, did the U of I have a right to a bench trial? I say that because, with hindsight being 20/20, it's obvious that the jurors (certainly the foreperson) certainly didn't have the aptitude to understand the situation at hand.

Interesting question. Unfortunately I don't know the answer. I'm sure someone will though.

 

[DMLadyhawk]

What evidence showed that Jane was discriminated against based on gender and/or sexual orientation? If she was a white straight male, what evidence in this case would show discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation?

Not trying to be snide,but the evidence that the jury found sufficient to find for the Plaintiff on all counts.

 

[tksirius]

Not trying to be snide,but the evidence that the jury found sufficient to find for the Plaintiff on all counts.

Why can't anyone point out any evidence that at least points to Jane Meyer being specifically discriminated by the U based on gender and/or sexual orientation? If this evidence was presented during trial, it hasn't been disclosed or has been hidden from the public apparently, because I have yet to see or hear of it.

 

[DMLadyhawk]

It doesn't matter if she had a thousand different performance reviews that were positive....this is an at-will state and she could be fired for any reason, other than for discriminatory reasons and there was absolutely ZERO evidence...either heresay, or written, or implied, that showed that Gary Barta, the Regents, or the University (all parties in the lawsuit) were discriminatory in their actions towards Meyer.

How do you know?

 

[DMLadyhawk]

Here's my question...as the defendant, did the U of I have a right to a bench trial? I say that because, with hindsight being 20/20, it's obvious that the jurors (certainly the foreperson) certainly didn't have the aptitude to understand the situation at hand.

Civil trials are bench trials in general unless a party asks for a jury trial. Criminal trials are the opposite. One of the parties asked for a jury trial.

 

[DDThompson]

$1.4 million is nothing.

It will cost $1million to move the baseball outfield fences in to where Heller wanted them so that he can recruit some power hitters.

But Meyer screwed it up because she didn't allow Heller to sit at the planning table.

Give her the $1.4m and then deduct $1.0m for her screw up.

 

[DDThompson]

If the University of Iowa is such a horrible place for Meyer to work, how did she get the #2 job? Get good job reviews for years? Got nasty after her same sex lover got fired and she didn't?

PC eating it's own on someone else's dime. The UofI isn't the only place that's happening